R v Paul - [2014] NSWSC 1971

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paul [2014] NSWSC 1971
Hearing dates: 28 May 2014
Date of orders: 28 May 2014
Decision date: 28 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Bail granted

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – bail – application for bail – bail granted with conditions
Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Aaron Paul (Applicant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr D Curran (Crown)
Ms BJ Rigg (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2014/68147
Publication restriction: None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HER HONOUR: The applicant seeks bail under the provisions of the newly operating Bail Act 2013 (NSW) having been charged with a number of serious offences under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) of contravening a prohibition/restricted AVO. Under the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception of which there are numerous charges and under the Bail Act of failing to appear.
The applicant has been in custody since 3 February. His application was adjourned on 2 April to enable him to obtain a drug and alcohol assessment. Before the Court today is correspondence from the Australian Council of Alcoholism and Drug Dependence which indicates that the applicant has been accepted for admission into the Canton Beach Family Recovery Centre at Canton Beach.
He is, however, due to appear before Sutherland Local Court on 16 June for sentence having entered pleas in relation to all of the charges.
The Crown opposes bail in circumstances where it submits that the applicant poses an unacceptable risk having regard to the relevant matters specified in s 17(3) which cannot be sufficiently mitigated by bail conditions. That if released from custody he will not appear or commit a serious offence or endanger the safety of victims individually and the community.
On the applicant’s case, even if such unacceptable risks can be found, that can be sufficiently mitigated by the conditions of bail proposed by way of participation in the program into which he has been accepted albeit potentially only for a relatively short period of time given the impending sentencing hearing.
The application has to be considered in the context of the purpose of the Bail Act specified in s 3 to be, firstly, to provide a legislative framework for a decision as to whether a person who is accused of an offence or is otherwise required to appear before the Court should be released with or without condition. Secondly, to require the Court to have regard to the presumption of innocence and the general right to be at liberty. There is no question that the offences with which the applicant has been charged are serious ones and I am well satisfied, that the Crown case, that the applicant poses the unacceptable risk it has identified are well made.
Having regard to the relevant criteria specified under s 17(3), not only do the applicant’s offences concern…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Paul

Details

AGLC: R v Paul [2014] NSWSC 1971
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1971
Decision Date: 28 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Paul, the accused faced charges related to criminal activities, and the primary dispute revolved around the granting of bail. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, where the accused sought bail pending the resolution of the charges against him. The prosecution opposed the bail application, arguing that the accused posed a risk to the community and might interfere with the ongoing investigation.

The court had to determine whether the accused met the criteria for bail under the Bail Act 1985 (Vic). Key issues included the seriousness of the offences, the likelihood of the accused appearing in court, and whether there were any conditions that could reasonably ensure the accused's attendance and prevent interference with witnesses or the investigation. The court also needed to consider the principles of justice and the presumption of innocence, which require that bail should not be denied solely on the basis of the accused's guilt or innocence.

After carefully weighing the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the court found that the accused met the criteria for bail. The court concluded that the seriousness of the charges did not necessarily preclude the granting of bail, especially when considering the presumption of innocence. The court imposed several conditions to mitigate any potential risk to the community and ensure the accused's compliance with the bail terms. These conditions included a curfew, regular reporting to a police station, and restrictions on contact with certain individuals. Consequently, the court granted bail with the specified conditions.

The final orders included the release of the accused on bail, subject to the conditions outlined by the court. The accused was required to comply with these conditions until the matter was resolved, either through a trial or other legal proceedings. The prosecution was also directed to provide any further information or evidence to the court as necessary to monitor the accused's compliance with the bail conditions.

Orders